Says outdated amendment needs some more amending

Published 4:32 pm, Thursday, May 9, 2013

The constitution gives the public a right to bear arms. The Second Amendment ensures such rights to a state's militia, and not a federal army.

A primary force was the armed individual, and his musket. Today we have three: individual, state, and federal government. We used to have one individual weapon, a musket. Today we have revolver, rifle, semiautomatic, and machine gun. No way that all weapons can or should be afforded the same rights as muskets.

If we agree on an individual right, we must still agree on the nature of arms. We need to revise this amendment to reflect today's weapons, it isn't just militias and muskets; wording is hopelessly dated.

All who insist on not changing the amendment nor its interpretation, will need to consider if a state armory is legal, it says: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. December 1791. No state armory here!

It's clear that only weapons necessary for a militia may not be prohibited. And the term "people" does not apply to John Doe but a militia. Any contrary view will allow outlawing militias.

If it applied to all "people," we'd need to amend it tomorrow, before some "people" get a hold of an antiaircraft missile, or heat-seaking, shoulder-fired antitank missiles. It's muskets -- all else needs an amended amendment.

But why be surprised, it made sense for most of 222 years since it's adoption. Lets not delete but revise it, it can't stand as is.